NWA vs AFA

[Bob Owens]

The unions are just as free to seek to hire the same people, and if you actually bother to look at the makeup of the NMB's staff, you'll see that it works both ways.

They may come from both sides but after they use the NMB as a stepping stone they always go to the corporate side.

All that said, even you have to admit that being a NMB mediator is a extremely specialized skillset, and since government agencies aren't known for paying well over time, they're going to go where they're paid better. And as already stated, the unions are just as free to recruit them as management is.

So in other words its OK that these people rule in ways that feather their bed? Thats what you are saying. You repeateded the point twice that both sides can recruit NMB officials. Thats not the way the system should work. thats saying that corruption is ok because both sides have the opportunity to pay off the official.

The fact is that the unions dont have the money that corporations have.

Just a hunch, but perhaps the real reason judges tend to rule favorably for corporations more often than not isn't because of corruption, but because most corporations are smart enough to follow the letter and intent of the law in the first place, so that they're not on the losing end of a judgement?

Well they should, after all they write them. Do you actually think that Sen McCain sat down and wrote S1327? The fact that Corporations write the law, and corporation while being legal persons are not legal citizens is in itself corruption since the laws should be made by the citizens, not corporations who may be run by foreigners.

It's not just a willy-nilly order of a single man, Bob. It's his interpretation of what the intent of the will of the people was when both pieces of legislation were crafted.

Ok, its the nilly willy interpretation of a corrupt Judge.

Poorly crafted legislation often leads to wide gaps that judges are left to interpret.

Yes but the general rule of thumb is to err on the side of not restricting freedom of action. Here the government did the opposite.

Likewise, when long standing legislation meets up with newer legislation, you're left to either fix it thru the legislative process, or wait for it to be interpreted in a courtroom.

Where does the BK code restrict strikes? The fact is it doesnt, its silent. THe RLA covers that. Why should it be interpreted that labor, and labor alone can be forced into working under conditions it never agreed to when it doesnt say that? The fact is that BK code allows the government to void out contracts, it does not force anyone to continue to do business after those contracts are voided.

More often than not, gaps and loopholes are left for a judge to interpret, the people get pissed off about it, which prompts the legislature to try and follow the will of the people and amend the law (e.g. radical court rulings regarding gay marriage in Massachussets and California resulted in other states passing constitutional amendments defining marriage).

Thats why all the unions should walk off the job until this is settled according to the RLA.

For at least the past five years, there's been a lot of argument over whether or not an airline could strike following arbrogation, yet not a single labor union or corporation bothered to try and fix it thru the legislative process. The corporations didn't pursue it because they felt that the uncertainty worked in their favor.

The corporation creted uncertainty, read the RLA, its clear.

If any or all of the major transport unions had spent a little more time being proactive on this, then it could have been codified in law as the will of the people, and not left it for a judge to interpret.

I agree we should be more proactive, and do so by withdrawing our labor and calling a general strike. A General Strike is a political expression, therefore protected under Free Speech. The fact is we dont have the money that corporations have so traditional lobbying etc are not efective so we should resort to using what we do have.If corporattions can use their money (calling it free speech)to lobby then unions can use strikes as a means of political expression.

 

[Bear96]

And not violating it also has unpleasent consequences. It allows a precident to be made and sends us off in a direction where workers rights are permanently damaged.

Too late. The precedent has been set; it doesn't matter if AFA violates the court order or not. The only way to undo it is to have this decision reversed, or to change the laws.

No that was my interpretation of what you wrote, so obviously you were not very clear.

I think the problem is more your unwillingness to hear points of view other than your own, and your lack of understanding about the legal system.

Thats just it. The law is clear. The RLA prohibits strikes as long as the status quo is maintained, its clear that a change in pay rates violates the status quo.

And the law is also "clear" that a company may abrogate collective bargaining agreements in bankruptcy with court approval. Look! We're now back to square one!

So far you havent address the fact that the Judge has not forced anyone else to continue to do business with NWA under unfavorable terms.

I (and others) have pointed out several times that labor contracts and other contracts are treated differently in bankruptcy. I am not sure what you want "addressed." It's a fact. That's a mixed bag for labor -- in some ways labor is treated better than other vendors / creditors / suppliers in BK; in some ways worse. If you don't like it, lobby to change the law.

In any case, vendors get screwed all the time in bankruptcy too. The vendor can make a delivery of a product, send a bill for $100,000 (or whatever), only to then see the company file bankruptcy and hope to get pennies on the dollar as an unsecured creditor. Compare that to employees -- have any employees had their paychecks bounce?

What are you talking about? They obviously already have.

Then what are YOU talking about? You said they couldn't.

Thats like saying they are free to strike, CHAOS would be "just as illegal" as a strike.

I don't understand you here. Yes, CHAOS is "just as illegal" as a strike. I'm not sure I see your point. AFA is "free" to engage in an illegal strike or in illegal CHAOS activities, just like civil rights activists were "free" to engage in their activities, some of which were also illegal at the time.

Yes but the general rule of thumb is to err on the side of not restricting freedom of action. Here the government did the opposite.

Actually, under U.S. BK law, the rule of thumb is to err on the side of keeping the debtor alive, instead triggering a set of events that could force it to liquidate. Here the court did just that.

 

[eolesen]

Ok, its the nilly willy interpretation of a corrupt Judge.

He's obviously corrupt, because there's absolutely no chance that a judge (with decades of experience practicing law) would know more than you, Bob Owens, ousted TWU official and licensed aircraft mechanic, do about how to interpret law....

Where does the BK code restrict strikes? The fact is it doesnt, its silent. THe RLA covers that.

Where does the RLA restrict arbrogating a contract? The fact is that it doesn't. It's silent. The Bankruptcy Code covers that.

The fact is that both statutes have been followed to the letter, and that obviously pisses you (and others) off.

That's why Moreno has the two sides meeting under the auspices of the NMB (as called for under the RLA) to try and come to an agreement (as called for by the RLA) before being released into a 30-day cooling off period (as called for by the RLA) and then being able to strike (as covered by the RLA).


I happen to agree with you that the status quo was violated, and that the AFA should have walked off the job.

They didn't, and as much as I disagree with his decision, the fact still remains that a judge's decision is based on his knowledge of law as a practicing jurist, not on my or your laymans' view of the circumstances.

 

[Bob Owens]

Too late. The precedent has been set; it doesn't matter if AFA violates the court order or not. The only way to undo it is to have this decision reversed, or to change the laws.

And the most effective means that labor has is to cause massive disruptions, in other words walk opff the job until; we are given some guarantees that we will be treated fairly.

And the law is also "clear" that a company may abrogate collective bargaining agreements in bankruptcy with court approval. Look! We're now back to square one!

And the RLA is clear in that once a contract has been revoked that BOTH parties are free to use self help, in other words the company can put new work rules and rates of pay into effect and the unions can strike.

I (and others) have pointed out several times that labor contracts and other contracts are treated differently in bankruptcy.

Apparently others are treated as they have rights but labor isnt.

I am not sure what you want "addressed." It's a fact. That's a mixed bag for labor -- in some ways labor is treated better than other vendors / creditors / suppliers in BK; in some ways worse. If you don't like it, lobby to change the law.

How are they treated better?

In any case, vendors get screwed all the time in bankruptcy too. The vendor can make a delivery of a product, send a bill for $100,000 (or whatever), only to then see the company file bankruptcy and hope to get pennies on the dollar as an unsecured creditor. Compare that to employees -- have any employees had their paychecks bounce?

Sure they have. Obviosly you havent spoken to anyone who worked for Eastern, Pan Am, Branniff and many other carriers that stiffed their employees out of theirr paycheck and other items.

Actually, under U.S. BK law, the rule of thumb is to err on the side of keeping the debtor alive, instead triggering a set of events that could force it to liquidate. Here the court did just that.

Was it the BK court that made the ruling barring the strike? The BK code repeats over and over again about not violating other statutes. I still have not seen anything, other than the fact that the Judge ruled that they cant strike, that counters the fact that the Judge is violating the RLA which guarantees certain rights, at a cost, for workers involved in Interstate Transportation. He is violating the RLA because he has allowed the company to change pay and workrules without allowing Labor to defend their intrests. Again, if he can do this then what is stopping him from telling Exxon(for example) that not only are they terminating their contract with NWA but that they must continue to provide them fule but at a cost that NWA feels they can afford to pay?

I still cant see how anyone could interpret this as anything less than the confiscation of of the collective property , and the terminiation of their right to bargain collectively, of airline workers for the benifit of a private corporation. While BK provides protection I doubt that the intent was to give them the right to take the property of others under whatever terms they feel like. In every other case the Judge simply releases both parties from the contract, the other parties are not forced to submit to whatever NWA feels like.

The court is declaring that collective Capital has superior rights than collective human labor and that Collective Capital has a right to collective labor under unilateral terms.

 

[eolesen]

Bob, both sides were released from the contract, but what you're failing to grasp is that simply being released from the contract by the BK court doesn't automatically give unions the right to strike under the RLA. Labor is unique in that they're bound to follow the RLA's process before they can strike.

Get airlines out of the RLA, and this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Bob Owens]

He's obviously corrupt, because there's absolutely no chance that a judge (with decades of experience practicing law) would know more than you, Bob Owens, ousted TWU official and licensed aircraft mechanic, do about how to interpret law....

I dont claim to know everything about all laws but if Laws are so complex that nobody can understand them then how can you be expected to comply with them?

But, the RLA is not all that complex. Its pretty clear what its intent is and what happens when. I dont question his knowledge of the law and that is why I say he is corrupt. Clearly he knows that labor under the RLA has some pretty serious restrictions that other workers in the private sector do not face, the quid pro quo is that there are certain guarantees, such as maintenance of the status quo(which really isnt much of a quid or a quo because that too is usually abused by the NMB to the advantage of the company). Clearly status quo has been vioated and the RLA does cover situations where this happens, its called a major dispute. The RLA is clear that a change of the rates of pay constitutes a major dispute so there is no "release or determination or 30 day cooling off period by the NMB because they never entered mediation.

There is more to the RLA than the mediation process, in this case NWA chose to go outside the mediation process but the RLA still applies and the RLA is clear in that rates of pay have been changed the workers can strike.

Where does the RLA restrict arbrogating a contract? The fact is that it doesn't. It's silent. The Bankruptcy Code covers that.

And the RLA covers the response to the termination of a mutual agreement-self help, the company can change pay rates and the union can strike.

The fact is that both statutes have been followed to the letter, and that obviously pisses you (and others) off.

The fact is they have not. Where does either statute state that the workers must accept new terms? The fact is only Congress can do that, as per the RLA.

That's why Moreno has the two sides meeting under the auspices of the NMB (as called for under the RLA) to try and come to an agreement (as called for by the RLA) before being released into a 30-day cooling off period (as called for by the RLA) and then being able to strike (as covered by the RLA).

All of those conditions are contingient upon the maintenance of the status quo.

I happen to agree with you that the status quo was violated, and that the AFA should have walked off the job.

So in other words the Judge is wrong.

They didn't, and as much as I disagree with his decision, the fact still remains that a judge's decision is based on his knowledge of law as a practicing jurist, not on my or your laymans' view of the circumstances.

Well if you feel that his decision was correct due to his knowledge of law as a practicing jurist then why do you disagree with his decision? That doesnt make sense.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, both sides were released from the contract, but what you're failing to grasp is that simply being released from the contract by the BK court doesn't automatically give unions the right to strike under the RLA. Labor is unique in that they're bound to follow the RLA's process before they can strike.

Get airlines out of the RLA, and this wouldn't be an issue.

Wrong, under the RLA when both sides are released the company can change pay rates and unions can strike. Thats the case here, except the court is saying that the contract they had is gone, the company changed terms and the union CANT strike!!!!! Thats directly contradictory to what the RLA states.

They say that under the RLA contracts never expire, they become amendable, its only if the two sides can not come to an agreement that the contract expires. What you fail to understand is that under mediation the contract remains in effect until a new or amended agreement is made. So during the 30 day cooling off period-the contract remains in place, even if the President issues a 90 day PEB-the old agreement and rates stay in place the RLA is clear in that once the company is free to change pay rates and other things the union is free to strike.

 

[Bear96]

And the most effective means that labor has is to cause massive disruptions, in other words walk opff the job until; we are given some guarantees that we will be treated fairly.

Great! So do it already.

How are they treated better?

I've already explained that. You didn't listen the first time, and I have no indication that if I take the time to explain it again, you would listen this time.

Sure they have. Obviosly you havent spoken to anyone who worked for Eastern, Pan Am, Branniff and many other carriers that stiffed their employees out of theirr paycheck and other items.

Sorry -- my bad -- I meant no one at NW has had their paychecks bounce. (Or US, or UA, or DL, in their reorganizational bankruptcies.) Sure if you want to talk liquidations, obviously everyone is screwed.

The court is declaring that collective Capital has superior rights than collective human labor and that Collective Capital has a right to collective labor under unilateral terms.

I'll have to take some time to digest that, but at first glance, yes, I would say that is an accurate description of what happened.

Fortunately, in this country you have the right to try to change the law if you don't like it. Now hop to it!

 

[eolesen]

I happen to agree with you that the status quo was violated, and that the AFA should have walked off the job.

So in other words the Judge is wrong.

Nope. I am. One thing I learned as a coach is that arguing with an umpire/referee doesn't accomplish anything aside from risking getting ejected from the playing field.

In every game, the call made by the referee/umpire is going to go against one side or the other.

Real losers blame the ref for what happens out on the field.

They didn't, and as much as I disagree with his decision, the fact still remains that a judge's decision is based on his knowledge of law as a practicing jurist, not on my or your laymans' view of the circumstances

Well if you feel that his decision was correct due to his knowledge of law as a practicing jurist then why do you disagree with his decision? That doesnt make sense.

Sure it does, Bob. I admit my opinion on how I thought it should have played out is not how the law is written.

Others have said the same thing, and have conceded that while the situation sucks, the law is what it is.

Except for you, of course.

 

[Bob Owens]

[quote name='Bear96' date='Oct 19 2006, 11:00 PM' post='423669

I've already explained that. You didn't listen the first time, and I have no indication that if I take the time to explain it again, you would listen this time.
[/quote]

Didnt see it. Where is it where you describe how labor it treated better?

Sorry -- my bad -- I meant no one at NW has had their paychecks bounce. (Or US, or UA, or DL, in their reorganizational bankruptcies.) Sure if you want to talk liquidations, obviously everyone is screwed.

Ok, which of NWAs vendors have gone unpaid? Has everyone that does business with NWA seen their contracts cancelled and court imposed cuts on what they charge? Has anyone other than labor seen that?

I'll have to take some time to digest that, but at first glance, yes, I would say that is an accurate description of what happened.

Fortunately, in this country you have the right to try to change the law if you don't like it. Now hop to it!

You have the right to try but dont actually try and excercise that right.


[quote name='Former ModerAAtor' post='423753' date='Oct 20 2006, 02:19 AM']
In every game, the call made by the referee/umpire is going to go against one side or the other.
[/quote]

Yes but the call is supposed to be right. If someone is clearly out of bounds the coach can ask for the replay and the call is changed.

Sure it does, Bob. I admit my opinion on how I thought it should have played out is not how the law is written.

Still doesnt make sense. If thats the way the law is written then why do you disagree?

Others have said the same thing, and have conceded that while the situation sucks, the law is what it is.

And others have stated that they think he will be overturned in a higher court, if he is overturned that means that a higher court has determined that he was wrong.

 

[Bear96]

Didnt see it. Where is it where you describe how labor it treated better?

I'll let you dig it up if you're that interested, because I addressed it in a couple of places and frankly I don't have the time. But basically the premise is that once a debtor enters Ch. 11 it can abrogate any contract it wants to for no reason (other than being in Ch. 11). However, labor contracts get the extra protection of S 1113, which requires the debtor to follow specific steps and obtain court approval before tossing those contracts. Non-labor contracts don't have that protection. Vendors don't get the chance, for example, to argue in court why the debtor shouldn't abrogate their contracts, the way unions do. If ABC Fuel Co. just delivered $100,000 worth of fuel the month before the filing, then sent a bill, and then the airline files, ooops, ABC Fuel Co. is out $100,000, even though they had a contract to deliver the fuel in exchange for $100,000.

In fact in the last week or so, I remember hearing on the news that one of the NW or DL express carriers (I forget which one) recently was refused court permission to abrogate their contracts.

Another example is the first day orders in a Ch. 11 filing. Part of this standard procedure is to obtain court approval to pay employees wages due, unlike other vendors and creditors owed money, who are left out in the cold and have to join an unsecured creditors committee to fight for maybe a few pennies on the dollar, if they are lucky.

Ok, which of NWAs vendors have gone unpaid?

Google "Northwest Airlines unsecured creditors committee" and spend some time doing a little research.

Are you seriously arguing here that creditors aren't hurt in a BK? Then may I ask you what you think the point of a bankruptcy is? If the debtor still has to pay every dime to everyone they owe money, what is the point? Or is the point in your mind solely to screw labor -- in which case my question becomes why do non-unionized businesses file Ch. 11? And please explain what the purpose of an unsecured creditors committee is, if they are all going to get the money they are owed anyways?

You have the right to try but dont actually try and excercise that right.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Bob Owens]

I'll let you dig it up if you're that interested, because I addressed it in a couple of places and frankly I don't have the time. But basically the premise is that once a debtor enters Ch. 11 it can abrogate any contract it wants to for no reason (other than being in Ch. 11). However, labor contracts get the extra protection of S 1113, which requires the debtor to follow specific steps and obtain court approval before tossing those contracts. Non-labor contracts don't have that protection. Vendors don't get the chance, for example, to argue in court why the debtor shouldn't abrogate their contracts, the way unions do. If ABC Fuel Co. just delivered $100,000 worth of fuel the month before the filing, then sent a bill, and then the airline files, ooops, ABC Fuel Co. is out $100,000, even though they had a contract to deliver the fuel in exchange for $100,000.

In fact in the last week or so, I remember hearing on the news that one of the NW or DL express carriers (I forget which one) recently was refused court permission to abrogate their contracts.

Well obviously those so called protections didnt mean much. What they look like on paper and how things play out in real life are completely different.

The fact that one court ruled that a company could not abrogate the contracts at a small carrier that would have little economic impact does not mean that the law is applied fairly in fact it means the law is not applied fairly. Whats the difference between what the feeder was doing and what NWA was doing other than scale?

Another example is the first day orders in a Ch. 11 filing. Part of this standard procedure is to obtain court approval to pay employees wages due, unlike other vendors and creditors owed money, who are left out in the cold and have to join an unsecured creditors committee to fight for maybe a few pennies on the dollar, if they are lucky.

Thats because if they dont pay the employees the company would shut down immediately. Employees are usually paid weekly or every other week. Vendors are usually paid within 90 days or more. Do they maintain payments to the pensions too? THats employee pay too isnt it? Besides I'm sure that employees are not the only ones included in the filings.Isnt it true that once they enter C-11 they have to make all payment requests, even bonuses for the executives, payments for fuel, landing fees, rents etc through a similar process?

Google "Northwest Airlines unsecured creditors committee" and spend some time doing a little research.

In other words you dont know of any vendors who have not been paid or only recieved pennies on the dollar. A committe of Unsecured creditors means just that, that they have money owed to them that is not secured, it doesnt mean that they have not been paid or lost anything. Besides most of the stuff from Google talks about how the unions are on the committee.

Are you seriously arguing here that creditors aren't hurt in a BK? Then may I ask you what you think the point of a bankruptcy is? If the debtor still has to pay every dime to everyone they owe money, what is the point? Or is the point in your mind solely to screw labor -- in which case my question becomes why do non-unionized businesses file Ch. 11? And please explain what the purpose of an unsecured creditors committee is, if they are all going to get the money they are owed anyways?

I think that I've covered this before. You are talking about debt that was accrued in the past. Debt accrued up to the point where they sought protection. Thats at risk, but not future earnings, the creditor companies may lose what is owed to them and be free to set new terms, terms where if they want they could factor in their losses in order to recoup or stop doing business with them. They are not forced to continue to "lose money" or continue to engage in business with them under terms that they dont agree to into the future. BK obviosly protects a company from creditors, however the issue here is whether or not BK not only protects them from debts but allows the company to impose favorable terms without the consent of the other party into the future. While the intent of C-11 is to save salvagable companies I doubt that the intent was to create a situation where one party to a contract has all the say over terms and the other must comply. Debt, well you took a risk, what you let on a line you lost,thats understood, but this allows them to take the reel and rod too!

So, when the BK company does not fund pensions and other benifits and the employees lose what they were contractually entitled to thats not comparable to a company only getting pennies on the dollar?

 

[UAL_TECH]

If you are all waiting for the AFA to make a final stand that none of us could, then (IHMO) you are pi$$ing in the wind. Even if Da’Judge were to release them, they would put off any actions until after our national holiday of Halloween. Then we are getting close to Thanksgiving and the next deference will be Christmas, then New Years, then ….? From what I have been reading from various sites is that the FA’s are more concerned about their schedule than anything else. The ‘recall’ has been very positive (company wide) and with exception of a few FA’s everyone is happy and ready to go back to work.

They have ‘met’ the equilibrium of their pay scale and status.

Not unlike the Tech’s that are still willing to work their 2nd RDO for time and a half and blame the ‘Union’ for not negotiating a better contract.

 

[Bear96]

Well obviously those so called protections didnt mean much. What they look like on paper and how things play out in real life are completely different.

The fact that one court ruled that a company could not abrogate the contracts at a small carrier that would have little economic impact does not mean that the law is applied fairly in fact it means the law is not applied fairly.

You asked for an example of how labor can have more protection under bankruptcy; I gave you two.

(P.S. Life is not fair.)

In other words you dont know of any vendors who have not been paid or only recieved pennies on the dollar.

By name, no, because I have not been following NW's unsecured creditors very closely. But the companies on the USC are owed money by NW and/or expect to lose a lot due to dealings with NW.

A committe of Unsecured creditors means just that, that they have money owed to them that is not secured, it doesnt mean that they have not been paid or lost anything.

Eh? They have money owed to them but it doesn't mean they haven't been paid or lost anything? Which is it?

So apparently your position is indeed that unsecured creditors don't get hurt in a bankruptcy filing. I see why it is so hard to have a conversation about bankruptcy with you.

I think that I've covered this before. You are talking about debt that was accrued in the past. Debt accrued up to the point where they sought protection. Thats at risk, but not future earnings, the creditor companies may lose what is owed to them and be free to set new terms, terms where if they want they could factor in their losses in order to recoup or stop doing business with them. They are not forced to continue to "lose money" or continue to engage in business with them under terms that they dont agree to into the future.

Yes, and I have agreed with you before on this point, that in some ways labor has it worse off than creditors. Rememeber the point I have been trying to make that labor and other contracts are treated differently in BK? Sometimes that benefits labor; sometimes it does not. You hit on a way where it can be said that labor is treated worse than creditors are. You have covered this before, and I have agreed with you on it before.

So, when the BK company does not fund pensions and other benifits and the employees lose what they were contractually entitled to thats not comparable to a company only getting pennies on the dollar?

When did I ever say anything resembling that?

 

[eolesen]

In other words you dont know of any vendors who have not been paid or only recieved pennies on the dollar. A committe of Unsecured creditors means just that, that they have money owed to them that is not secured, it doesnt mean that they have not been paid or lost anything.

You don't know what you're talking about there, Bob.

I now work for a company who was an unsecured creditor of several bankruptcies (including at least two airlines), and has had to write off close to $1M in the past five years.

Most of that was unpaid invoices for services provided prior to filing, and to a lesser extent, for services provided after filing for which we never received payment because the filing was converted to a liquidation.

To say that we didn't lose anything is pure crap, Bob.

We paid our employees for the services they provided to the bankrupt customer, but were never able to collect on the invoices. What little we received in the settlement didn't even cover the interest paid out on a line of credit to make up for the cashflow interruption.

When America West filed for bankruptcy in the 90's, there was a ripple effect on several local companies in PHX whose primary revenue source was HP. Sure, it was a poor business decision on their part to put their eggs all in one basket, but the fact still remains that as unsecured creditors, they had no leverage to bargain with, and the loss of 90 days worth of revenue was enough to force them to go out of business.

This same situation has probably occurred in just about every airline bankruptcy filing.

So, you can go off about how unsecured creditors don't lose anything, but tell that to the employees who were put out of work because of someone else's bankruptcy filing.